Memo to Designers 5-1 • March 2017

LRFD

5-1 Abutments
General
Abutments support the superstructure and roadway embankment, enhance serviceability of
the superstructure, provide a smooth transition from roadway to bridge, and can potentially
enhance seismic response of the bridge. In design of the abutments, the designer needs to
pay attention to layout and geometry of the abutment, superstructure loads and movements,
drainage issues, structure approaches, and seismic effects. Furthermore, water flow and
possible scour need to be considered for bridges crossing waterways.

Type Selection of Abutments

Based on rigidity of the connection to the superstructure, abutments are classified as integral
and non-integral. Integral abutments can be further categorized as diaphragm abutments,
bin abutments, and rigid frame abutments. Non-integral abutments can be categorized as
seat-type abutments (formerly sub-divided as short seat and high cantilever abutments), and
strutted-type abutments. General layout and typical details of abutments are shown in the
Bridge Design Details (BDD) manual.
Based on proximity of the abutment stem to the traffic passing under the bridge, abutments
can be classified as open-end and closed-end. Open-end abutments are placed on the top of
the approach embankment to provide an open appearance to the adjacent traffic.
The two most commonly used abutments are the seat and diaphragm types. The seat-type
abutment is a non-integral abutment acting as an independent structural component of the
bridge. The main components of a seat-type abutment are back wall, stem, wing walls, and
foundation. The lateral soil pressure is mostly resisted by the stem, which acts similarly to
a retaining wall. To simplify analysis, the horizontal load at the bridge bearings supported
by an abutment is assumed as a percentage of the superstructure vertical reaction force
caused by dead load and additional dead load. The horizontal load represents the effect of
movements due to temperature fluctuations, post-tensioning, creep, and shrinkage that act
at the level of bearing pads.
The main advantage of the diaphragm abutments is the lower initial construction cost,
however application of this type of integral abutment is primarily bridges short in length.
Movements of the superstructure due to temperature fluctuations, post-tensioning, and creep
and shrinkage are transferred to the abutment and the designer needs to consider these effects
by modeling the diaphragm abutment and superstructure together. Furthermore, backfill soil
pressure causes internal forces in the superstructure that must be included in superstructure
analysis and design. Refer to Memo to Designers (MTD) 5-2 for applications and limitations
of the diaphragm abutments.

5-1 Abutments 1
 Memo to Designers 5-1 • March 2017

LRFD

High cantilever, bin, rigid frame, and strutted abutments are the less commonly used closed
end abutment types. They are typically used for in-kind bridge widening, unusual sites, or
in geometrically constrained urban locations. Rigid frame abutments can be used in new
applications, but their use is generally limited to single span tunnel type (cut-and-cover)
connectors and overhead structures that provide passage through a roadway embankment.
These abutment types have a high initial cost and present a closed (tunnel like) appearance
to approaching traffic by placing the structure supports adjacent to traffic. At overcrossings,
these abutment types usually preclude widening of the highway below without complete
bridge replacement.
Another type of abutment may be a combination of an end pier (bent) and a retaining system
that is isolated from the superstructure and end pier. The retaining system is used to support
the embankment. The gap between the end pier and retaining system must be wide enough
to avoid contact of the two isolated structures due to movements caused by earthquakes.
Design of the end pier will be similar to an intermediate pier, however effects of torsion due
to unbalanced loading of the end bent needs to be considered in design of the substructure
components.

Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) Requirements

Abutments must be designed according to AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications and
current California Amendments (AASHTO-CA BDS). Load combinations for abutments
will be according to Article 3.4.5 of AASHTO-CA BDS. In general, abutments must be
designed for Service, Strength, Construction, and Extreme Event load combinations. Refer
to MTD 3-1 and 4-1 for design of abutment foundations.
Under service load combinations the abutment foundation checks include settlement and
eccentricity for shallow foundations, and settlement and horizontal movement for deep
foundations. Movement analysis at abutments is complex. Horizontal movement, vertical
displacements, and footing rotation, are all possible causes of structural damage or long-term
maintenance issues. To control these displacements, AASHTO-CA BDS establishes safe
levels of support settlement under the Service-I load combination. Furthermore, AASHTO-
CA BDS allows case-specific increases in the acceptable settlement levels if the safety of the
superstructure is verified through more refined analysis. (Refer to Article 3.4.1 of California
Amendments). Permissible horizontal load for deep foundations corresponds to an allowable
horizontal movement of traditionally 0.25 in. at the pile cut-off point. AASHTO-CA BDS
limits the maximum LRFD Service-I load that can be applied to the pile to the permissible
horizontal load.
The factored loads calculated at strength and construction limit states are used to check the
bearing and sliding capacities of shallow foundations. For deep foundations, the factored
loads are given to the Geotechnical Designer (GD) to provide tension and compression tip

2 5-1 Abutments
 Memo to Designers 5-1 • March 2017

LRFD

elevations for deep foundations. Battered driven piles are frequently used at abutments to
increase shear capacity of the foundation system. The horizontal component of the battered
pile axial force can be included in calculation of shear capacity of the foundation.

Horizontal Loading and Soil Pressure

Rotation of the abutment foundation due to horizontal loading will result in stem movements
and therefore will affect the mobilization of the soil behind the abutment. The level of soil
mobilization will affect the lateral earth pressure that is resisted by the abutment. Designers
may use an active pressure coefficient, ka, to calculate the embankment lateral earth pressure
behind the non-integral abutment. The development of the passive lateral earth pressure
acting in front of the abutment needs large movement of the abutment and well-compacted
soil next to the abutment toe; therefore caution must be used when estimating contribution of
passive pressure to resistance. The maximum passive earth pressure coefficient, kp, assumed
for LRFD service and strength limit states analysis is 1.0. Use of any higher value needs to
be discussed and approved in a meeting between Project Engineer (or Structure Designer),
Substructure Specialist, and Geotechnical Designer prior to the Type Selection meeting. A
more detailed movement analysis may be required for non-ordinary abutments to estimate
lateral earth pressure coefficients.
The horizontal and vertical components of the live load surcharge acting on the embankment
must be considered in abutment analysis. In abutments constructed in soft soils, downdrag
may develop extra forces in the piles/shafts. In that case, factored downdrag forces must be
included in foundation design.

Alternative Backfill Materials

The use of slurry cement backfill for abutments is not permitted. Slurry cement backfill may
exert higher lateral forces to the abutment (when fresh and compared to earth backfill) and
cause long-term drainage problems. Furthermore, nonlinear soil springs, commonly used
to model the resistance of the abutment backwall and adjacent soil for seismic analysis of
the superstructure are likely to be inaccurate with slurry cement backfill. Application of
lightweight concrete (such as cellular concrete) as backfill will require a design exception.

Scour Effects
When the structure is on or adjacent to a waterway, the effect of scour must be considered
from the early stages of planning and design. Communication between the structural,
geotechnical, and hydraulics engineers should start in the early stages of design. Waterway

5-1 Abutments 3
 Memo to Designers 5-1 • March 2017

LRFD

and associated environmental constraints affect the selection and locations of the abutments
and pier(s). Some projects may require considering alternative span(s) or total bridge
lengths to optimize the design. Generally, abutments are designed assuming that backfills
are adequately drained. Reanalysis and adjustments in design may be required when site
conditions vary from this assumption.
The effect of scour must be considered in estimating the required embedment of the spread
footing or pile cap. It must also be considered for the geotechnical design of deep foundations.
Scour at bridge approach encroachments can be complex. Abutments should be founded
outside of the waterway boundaries, whenever practical. The hydraulics engineer should
be consulted during the design of abutments and piers which are constructed within the
waterway. The hydraulics engineer will provide the designer the scour condition(s) required
for analysis. The hydraulics engineer must be also consulted for layout of the wing wall or
return wall to improve water flow and to minimize hydraulic effects. Refer to AASHTO-CA
BDS for water and stream pressure (WA) load factors.

Seismic Design Requirements

The objective of the Seismic Design Criteria (SDC) for ordinary standard bridges is to prevent
collapse of the bridge. This performance criteria is known as the no-collapse criteria. The
SDC’s no collapse criteria specifies the abutment back wall and shear keys as sacrificial
components, meaning that damage in these components is accepted to prevent damage to
other protected components.
The abutment back wall and the resisting soil behind the back wall affect seismic analysis
of the bridge in the longitudinal direction (Figure 1). Abutment shear keys resist minor
earthquakes in the transverse direction (Figure 2), however the shear keys may act as a fuse
and break in a major earthquake to protect the foundation system and to avoid costly repairs.

Refer to SDC for properties of

Soil Mobilized abutment back wall soil springs

EQL

EQL : Seismic Force in Longitude Direction

Figure 1 – Seismic Resisting Components (Longitudinal Direction)

4 5-1 Abutments
 Memo to Designers 5-1 • March 2017

LRFD

External Shear Key (Typical) EQT

Internal Shear Key (harder to

repair and should be avoided)

Refer to SDC for limitations on

shear capacity of the keys.

EQT : Seismic Force in Transverse Direction

Figure 2 – Seismic Resisting Components (Transverse Direction)
For abutments of ordinary standard bridges constructed in competent soil (as defined in
SDC), and with height limitations specified in Article 3.4.5 of the AASHTO-CA BDS, no
increase in soil active pressure due to seismic excitations is required. However, GD should
consider seismic effects in global stability analysis of the slope. Furthermore, sacrificial
components of abutment such as shear keys must be designed according to SDC requirements.
If abutments are used in non-competent soils, or where the height limitations specified in the
AASHTO-CA BDS are not met, then the increase in soil pressure is on a case by case basis
which must be discussed and approved by the Structure Design office chief before the type
selection meeting. For externally funded projects, liaison engineer shall request exception
to Division of Engineering Services (DES) Design Standards or Policy.
Seismic analysis of abutments in non-competent soil is complicated. Liquefaction, lateral
spreading and seismic downdrag resulting from earthquakes add to the complexity of analysis.
Battered piles shall not be used in abutments subjected to seismic downdrag.
The non-integral abutment gives the designer more control over the amount of earthquake
force the abutment can resist, but also introduces the potential of unseating the superstructure.
Unseating of the superstructure would result in collapse of the end span. To eliminate
unseating, the seat width of non-integral abutments must meet the minimum seat width
requirement specified in the SDC. The superstructure is restrained longitudinally by the
abutment back wall and approach embankment, and transversely by shear keys.
The longitudinal earthquake force required to mobilize the backfill for the full height of
the abutment is generally much larger than what a practical sized back wall and adjacent
backfill can resist. Therefore, the back wall is designed to fail before damaging forces can
be transmitted to the lower portion of the abutment. The longitudinal stiffness assumed for
the seismic analysis must be based on mobilizing only the soil equal to the depth of the
superstructure. This stiffness will result in larger earthquake displacements at the adjacent
bents than what would occur if the total stiffness were mobilized. An increase in longitudinal
displacements is generally unavoidable but is preferred in order to mitigate damage to the
abutment below the soffit level. The effects of larger displacements at the bents must be
considered in the design.

5-1 Abutments 5
 Memo to Designers 5-1 • March 2017

LRFD

Construction of abutments with heights exceeding 20 feet may require complex temporary
support systems for reinforcing bar assemblage. In order to facilitate the construction process,
for seat type abutments in competent soil, lap splices are acceptable for vertical bars at the
front face of the stem and L-shape bars used at the back face. For any other conditions service
splices of main vertical bars on the backside of stem wall as required.
Limited damage to abutments from a major earthquake is expected, and can be tolerated;
however damage to the piles is prohibited. The main purpose in evaluating the force
effects and movements at the abutments is to control damage to the abutment’s non-ductile
components (foundation, stem, and wing walls) and at the same time to obtain a realistic
estimate of the displacements at the intermediate supports. The latter is done by using
non-linear springs to model the back wall and adjacent backfill soil for global analysis of
the bridge.
For design of transverse shear keys in seat type abutments supported on deep foundations,
the limiting transverse earthquake load may be approximated by considering the ultimate
shear capacity of one wing wall plus the ultimate shear capacity of the piles. This force is
the maximum force that is expected to be transmitted through the keys. To reduce possible
damage to the piles, transverse keys must be designed with shear force capacity of 50% to
100% of the summation of ultimate shear capacity of one wing wall and 75% of the ultimate
shear capacity of the piles. When the transverse earthquake load exceeds the capacity of the
keys, the transverse stiffness for the seismic analysis is assumed to be zero and a released
condition should be used in the seismic analysis. This release will result in a larger design
lateral displacement at the adjacent bents.
When using SDC 7.8.4 requirements, designers must use gross dead load reaction at the
bottom of the footing for design of shear key of spread footings supported in rock. For spread
footings supported on soil 0.75 of the gross dead load reaction must be used. In general,
engineering judgment should be used based on geometry of the footing and type of the soil.
For sliding resistance of spread footings under Strength and Construction load combinations
refer to AASHTO-CA BDS.
Shear keys for seat abutments that are highly skewed, offer limited resistance in restraining
the superstructure from rotating away from the abutment. If possible, the designer should
reduce the skew of the abutment, even at the expense of increasing the bridge length. This
recommendation is especially applicable to long connector structures where large earthquake
displacements and force effects are anticipated at the abutments.

6 5-1 Abutments
 Memo to Designers 5-1 • March 2017

LRFD

Limitations on the Use of Shallow Foundations

(Spread Footings):
Earthquake action tends to densify both the roadway embankments and the foundation
material under embankments. As many roadway embankments tend to be granular in nature,
significant densification and, therefore, settlement of the embankment can be expected
during a major earthquake. Excessive settlement could cause significant damage to the
superstructure; therefore use of shallow foundations (spread footings) for abutments may
be problematic in certain conditions. Table 1 summarizes limitations on the use of shallow
foundations at abutments constructed in competent soil. For abutments constructed in non-
competent soil (marginal or poor soil, including soft or liquefiable) deep foundations (piles/
shafts) must be used, unless an exception is submitted and approved.
Table 1- Seismic Limitations on the Use of Spread Footings at Abutments

Superstructure Bent Footing Height Competent Soil

Type Type Limitation See Note 1 See Note 2
Single Span H < 36' Y Y
(Non-Integral NA
Abutment) H > 36' Y E
Single Span H < 10' Y Y
(Integral NA
Abutment) H > 10' Y E
Shallow H < 36' Y Y
Multispan Foundation H > 36' Y E
(Non-Integral
Abutment) Deep H < 36' Y E
Foundation H > 36' Y E
Shallow H < 10' Y Y
Multispan Foundation H > 10' Y Y
(Integral
Abutment) Deep H < 10' Y E
Foundation H > 10' E E
Note 1) When PGA < 0.6g for soil types B and C or PGA < 0.5g for soil Type D (refer to
SDC for Soil Classification)
Note 2) When PGA > 0.6g for soil types B and C or PGA > 0.5g for soil Type D (refer to
SDC for Soil Classification)
In the above table:
PGA : Peak Ground Acceleration
H : Height of abutment as shown in Figure 3.
Y : Yes, spread footing can be used.
E : Exception is needed. Refer to MTD 20-11

5-1 Abutments 7
 Memo to Designers 5-1 • March 2017

LRFD

H
H

Non-Integral Type Abutment Integral Type Abutment

(with/without piles) (with/without piles)

Figure 3 – Definition of Abutment Height for Seismic Classifications

Seismic Downdrag and Lateral Spreading

For abutments constructed in non-competent soil, an increase in the lateral earth pressure on
the stem due to seismic effects, axial forces developed in the piles due to seismic downdrag,
and lateral spreading in liquefiable soil must be discussed and approved in the type selection
meeting.

Mechanically Stabilized Embankment Abutments

(MSEA)
Mechanically Stabilized Embankments (MSE) may be used for bridge approaches (isolated
from the bridge). Caltrans' practices for using MSE at bridge approaches are shown in
Figure 4. In Figure 4A a conventional abutment resists vertical and horizontal bridge loads
as well as horizontal soil loads from the embankment. An expansion joint separates the
MSE from the return wall connected to the abutment stem. The MSE carries conventional
horizontal soil loads from the embankment (including traffic surcharge, etc.). In Figure 4B
an end bent resists the vertical and horizontal bridge loads. An adequate gap is required to
accommodate bridge movements i.e. the MSE is isolated from the bridge and has no bridge
loads to resist. No special design is required for either the abutment or MSE in this case,
and Caltrans' conventional practices for design of MSE and abutments can be followed. As
the abutment and bridge components behave conventionally, the system is in compliance
with Caltrans' Seismic Design Criteria.

8 5-1 Abutments
 Memo to Designers 5-1 • March 2017

LRFD

Top of Barrier
Approach slab
Superstructure
Return wall

MSE

Abutment

FG

Figure 4A - Conventional Abutment with MSE on Two Sides

Superstructure Top of Barrier

End Bent Approach slab

Column
MSE

FG

Figure 4B - End Bent with Isolated MSE on Three Sides

Figure 4 - Application of MSE at Bridge Approaches

The acceptable configurations of non-isolated MSE abutments are called MSEA Types 1
and 2 for Caltrans’ projects and are limited to:
• MSEA Type 1 (Figures 5 and 7) that has an abutment on a spread footing fully
supported by MSE, typically in a three sided or fully wrapped configuration.
• MSEA Type 2 (Figures 6 and 7) has an abutment with a pile foundation through an
MSE of any configuration.
Due to lack of information on performance during earthquake and associated risks, other
systems are not permitted at this time.

5-1 Abutments 9
 Memo to Designers 5-1 • March 2017

LRFD

Top of Barrier Superstructure

> 2’-0”
Dmin = 8-0.3 (20-Hmax) > 5(ft)
Hmax < 30’-0”

MSE

> 6”
FG

Figure 5 - MSEA Type 1 - Spread Footing (not to scale)

Top of Barrier Superstructure

> 2’-0”

> 5’-0”

MSE

FG

Figure 6 - MSEA Type 2 - Pile Foundation (not to scale)

10 5-1 Abutments
 Memo to Designers 5-1 • March 2017

LRFD

For Deep Foundations Dmin = 5’-0”

For Shallow Foundations Dmin = 8-0.3 (20-Hmax) > 5(ft)
MSE Facing
Dmin

5’-0”
Bridge minApproach Slab Roadway
5’-0”
min

MSE Facing

Figure 7 - MSEA Types 1 and 2 plan (not to scale)

Limitations of Application of an MSEA

MSEA Types I & 2 integrate conventional abutments together with an MSE wall. The
following is a summary of design considerations for these systems:
• MSEA Type 1 (Figures 5 and 7) is an alternative to conventional abutments
supported on spread footings in competent soil (as defined in Caltrans SDC). The
designer is responsible for designing the spread footing and MSE for all applicable
superstructure and substructure loading conditions. Due to concerns with protecting
the superstructure during seismic events, this type must only be used for single span
bridges on seat type abutments. The spread footing must be designed in accordance
to MTD 4-1.
• Conventional abutments supported on piles may use MSEA Type 2 (Figures 6 & 7).
The designer is responsible for designing piles adequate for all applicable loading
conditions from the bridge and MSE according to MTD 3-1 procedure, and designing
the MSE for all applicable loading conditions from all bridge elements.
• An MSEA must have adequate access to maintain and/or replace the bearings.

5-1 Abutments 11
 Memo to Designers 5-1 • March 2017

LRFD

• All clearances between obstructions and the back of the MSE facing must meet
current practice.
• As shown in Figures 5 and 7, the minimum distance between the back of the MSE
facing elements and any element of the spread footing must be:
D = 8 _ 0.3(20 _ H ) ≥ 5ft
min max
Where, Hmax is maximum height of the bridge soffit in feet from finished
grade as shown in Figure 5.
• A minimum clear distance of 5.0 ft must be provided between the facing and all
deep foundation components as shown in figures 6 and 7.

_______________________________
Susan E. Hida
Supervising Bridge Engineer, Structure Policy and Innovation
Division of Engineering Services

12 5-1 Abutments